Featured Divine Forgiveness

Ok......I have tried for a decade to get a legitimate answer to a question but all I get are responces that based off the assumption the issue in question is unquestionable.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on a specific presupposition. This presupposition is based on a judicial philosophy held by some in the 16th century.

If the presupposition is false then the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is false.

In the past all I get are interpretations of Scripture assuming the presupposition is true. That is not what I am asking.

I am asking a very simple question.

In order to be able to forgive sins why does divine justice require that God first punish the sins to be forgiven even if this is not punishing the transgressor?

 

We agree that God is holy and just.

I believe that God will punish the wicked. Scripture tells us His wrath abides on the wicked and there will be a "day of wrath" when God's justice is revealed.

But why do you believe God must punish sins (separated from the sinner)?

You say because God is just. But how does God's justice focus on crimes rather than the ones committing the crime?


To help understand my question, here is an illustration:

I commit a sin by getting drunk. To forgive me God must punish "getting drunk". So God, being a just God, punished "getting drunk" on Christ so He can forgive me.

Why must God punish "getting drunk" instead of punishing me for sinning?

How is that just? Why do you believe justice demands crimes, separate from the criminal, be punished?

 

But in both cases what is being forgiven is the person who committed the sin. What would suffer punishment had forgiveness not been granted is the person who committed the sin.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement separated sins from the sinner (something foreign to Hebrew thought). God must punish sins so He puts them on Another and punished them in order to forgive the transgressor.

That was the problem with the 16th century judicial philosophy (that is why Valjean had to go to jail for stealing the bread).

God's wrath abides on wickedness...this is not speaking of actions but those who commit the sins.

Sins are manifestations of sinfulness.

 

I agree that to say "sins are forgiven" and "God punishes sin" is to refer to the sinner and not the actual sin (a person is forgiven of their sins, a person is punished because of their sins).

That is my point here. And that is why the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is false at the start.

God does not punish or forgive sins (literally, sinful actions) but the sinner.

I am asking those who affirm Penal Substitution Theory to explain the reason they apply a particular philosophy to divine justice. Why do they believe divine justice, or God's holiness, requires that sins (not the transgressor) be punished?

 

I understand. I also affirmed Penal Substitution Theory at one time.

The presupposition that you need to justify remains - why must God punish someone (even if not the actual sinner) for sins committed.

Do you see how you have reverted from our agreed on position that punishing and forgiving sins refer to the person and not actually the sinful acts?

 

Yours is a problem of interpretation. You read sins being forgiving as God somehow forgiving metaphysical entities called "sin" rather than God forgiving people of their sins.

But hey, you deny that God's wrath abides on the wicked and at Judgment the wicked will be cast I to Hell. So I'm not surprised.

 

Then why do you believe a just and holy God would have a character or nature that punished sinful acts separated from the transgressor?

 

But the Bible does not tell you so, that's my point.

You interpret the Bible to mean that divine justice isolates sins from those who committed the sin, but this is not true of the Bible itself. No Christian even thought way until the 26th century.

The Bible does not treat sins separate from the sinner. Consequences may, of course, be passed down but the sin is indicative of the sinfulness of the person who committed the act.

If you are blindly accepting that God must punish sinful acts separated from the person who committed the act in order to forgive the sins then I suggest you at least try to read Scripture without that philosophy.

 

I would use the word "reconcile" rather than appease (reconciled man and God....I think we mean the same thing) but I agree with your post.

 

I am sorry for how I put that. I did not mean you follow philosophy, just that a particular philosophy is involved in all of our understanding and needs to be defended.

I preached a sermon on the cross. It was well reviewed and I was satisfied with the sermon. I awoke the next morning with a conviction that I had preached an understanding but strayed from God's Word.

I bought a couple of dry erase boards and took a few months going through listing every passage I could find dealing with Penal Substitution Theory. Then I erased all passages that did not state (in the text) aspects that separated Penal Substitution Theory from other views. I was left without any passages.

I could not defend its presuppositions.